tv This Week With George Stephanopoulos ABC December 9, 2012 8:00am-9:00am PST
mean for the economy and you? we'll get the latest from our decisionmakers. our capitol hill roundtable. debbie stabenow. tom coburn and jeep hensarling. we'll get the decisions with our roundtable. then, our powerhouse roundtable weighs in on that and all of the week's politics. tea party stalwart abandons. >> conservatives on the hill are counting on us. and the supreme court court takes on gay marriage. we'll break it all down with george will, james carville and mary matalin. paul krugman of the "new york times" and abc's own matthew dowd . hello, again, just over three weeks away from that fiscal cliff, we just come off a week of press conferences,
symbolic votes in senate, but less than an hour of serious negotiating. what will it take to break the stalemate? we'll get into that this morning, with two big roundtables of elected officials and experts. let's begin with the lawmakers. senator tom coburn for the republicans and debbie stabenow for the democrats. and congressman hensarlingg. the president said that for there to be a big deal, tax rates on the wealthy are going to have to go up. if that's his bottom line, can there be a deal? >> again, as the speaker has said, unfortunately what we see out of the president is my way or the highway. one dollar revenue for 2.5 of spending reductions. now, after the election, it's a little bit of bait and switch. now he's asking for $1.6 trillion. and if you look closely, for every one dollar of tax increase there's about 20 cents of spending reductions. >> i'm talking about the rates. if the rates go up, can the
republicans in the house accept the tax increase? >> no rep wants to vote for a rate tax increase. what that's going to do, is cause 700,000 americans to go from having paychecks to unemployment checks, because of what that's going to do to the economy, george, hardworking americans are going to see a 2% reduction in their paycheck if they keep them. listen, the president, again, if he would do what he said before the election, as opposed to the bait and switch, what the republicans feel like is a little bit like charlie brown running to kick the football and lucy pulls it away. ultimately, it's a spending problem. the american people know it. this talk of taxes is almost irrelevant to the size of the trillions and trillions of debt. >> but not to the president's negotiating position. senator coburn, you say, senator, that you could sign on to a tax rate increase provided
that the president and the democrats come forward with significant spending cuts and entitlement reform. what will it take for you to sign on to a tax rate increase? >> well, significant entitlement reform. the real problem, the president is proposing 7% of the solution. what we ought to be working on the other 93%. even if you do what he wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7% of the deficit. what we have done is, we have spend ourselves into a hole and we're not going to raise taxes, borrow money and get out of it. will i accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? yes. but the president is negotiating with the wrong people. he needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in china. because if we don't put a creditable plan on this, on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose. >> well, you got your colleague debbie stabenow, on the your
screen as well, can you just say quickly what it is going to take? i want to see if she can accept the kind of entitlement reforms that you're thinking. >> well, we got to quit playing the game, george, you can't continue to lie to the american people. there is no way to fix medicare under the guidelines of aarp with our tax dollars are now advertising to say not fix it. the way we can fix it is to control the cost. the way to control the cost is to have more individual participation. there's a lot of ways to do that. but you can't play the game and hide. medicare and social security and medicaid, if those aren't fixed, if we're not honest about how to fix them and the fact, that, yes, everybody in this country will have to participate in some discomfort, if we're going to get out of this hole. as long as we continue to lie to the american people that you can solve this problem without
adjusting and working on those programs it is dishonest and beneath anybody in washington. >> senator stabenow, you heard it right there, medicare, medicaid, social security, all have to significant reform, can you accept that? >> george, there are three parts of the stool here to solve this problem. one, spending. we've already agreed to trillion dollars in spending reductions. two, medicare and entitlements. we have already agreed to over $700 billion in spending reductions on medicare. starting by cutting overpayments to insurance companies. three, is making sure that the wealthiest in the country contribute to solving the deficit problem. that's what hasn't passed. for us to continue on this, we have to have the senate bill that continues tax cuts for middle-class families, that
says to the wealthiest americans, you're going to chip in and be part of the solution. the house needs to pass it. that means, we would have done something on each of the areas that my colleagues are talking about. then, we have to take another step on all three of those. but right now, the only thing that we see is middle-class families being asked over and over again to be the ones who have the burden in solving this problem and we're saying no. >> so your position for now is clear, no more reforms in medicare, medicaid until the middle-class tax cuts are extended. congressman, is that your position? >> yes. when i talked to the business folk in my district, the guy who sells furniture up the street in neighborhoods hit hard by this recession, they're not asking, oh, what's going to be my tax rate? what's the tax situation? they're looking for customers. part of this crisis that we're talking about is jobs.
and the ability to generate jobs to put americans to work and put americans back in a secure place for their families and correspondingly to help the businesses of this nation. i really think that we're doing is ignoring other sources, we're ignoring the loopholes and we're ignoring all of the breaks that have happened over a decade-plus. now, we're asking the middle class, the elderly, the poor, to carry the brunt of the mistakes that were made 10, 12 years ago. >> $800 billion by closing deductions and loopholes for the wealthy. another thing that he's going to put on the table, congressman hensarling. bottom line is, he's not going to negotiate over the debt limit. you have two big bottom lines for the president. i have been around capitol hill and washington for a long time. it's hard for me to see with those two big absolutes out there that you can get this done
by december 31st, is there a fallback position right now for the republicans? >> i must admit, that i didn't know that the president can surprise me once again. in other words, we no longer need a speed bump on the highway to bankruptcy, i mean, let's look at greece, greece has been very adept at increasing their debt ceiling. now, they have 25% unemployment. 50% youth unemployment. there are people who can't even finds jobs in cities who are having to move out, according to press reports, to rural areas. that could be our future. as tom said, if you gave the president every job-forming tax increase that he's asked for, it's about 3% of the spending. and the president himself has said that the drivers of our debt are medicare, medicaid and health care. nothing else comes close. >> senator stabenow pointed out -- >> you can't get it done, george.
you have to deal with the structural reforms to our entitlement spending, protecting current seniors but helping to insure my 10-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son that these programs are around for them. >> but senator coburn, in president obama's health care act, $116 billion in medicare savings, which a lot of republicans, not you, but a lot of republicans in the last campaign, including mitt romney, ran against. >> well, george, first of all, the $700 billion in savings doesn't save the government a penny, because it takes that 7$700 billion and spends it on other people. what -- it's really important that people look. the government is twice the size it was 11 years ago, we have seen the president demand that we're going to solve 7% of this problem, but he's totally inflexible on the other 93%. it doesn't really matter what happens at the end of this year, because ultimately, the numbers
and the bondholders throughout the world, will determine what we'll spend and what we won't. we can play the political game that is being played out in washington right now. or we could actually be absolutely honest with the american people, and say medicare is going bankrupt, social security bankrupt in two years, social security trust fund will be bankrupt in five years, social security total will be bankrupt in probably 16, 17 years. those are worst-case scenarios by the trustees of both those organizations. we can play that game. but the fact is, we're spending money that we don't have on things that we don't absolutely need and there's no grown-ups in washington that will say time-out, stop the politics, let's have a compromise rather than to continue to play the game through the press and hurt the country. we're already going to get
another debt downgrade just from what's happening now because no one in positions of power is willing to do what's important and necessary for our country. >> you know what, george, if i might just jump in, george, on that one, first of all and say, social security isn't going bankrupt, we're making reforms in medicare, in fact the cost of medicare advantage has gone down by 7% for seniors because what we have done. but what's going to happen at the end of the year, if the house doesn't act, middle-class families will see a tax increase, that's going to be at least $2200 per person. one of my constituents said, that's four months groceries for one family. that's a lot of talk. i agree with my colleagues. one thing that's very clear, at the end of this year, if the house of representatives does not pass the middle-class tax cut, we're going to see middle-class families across this country paying at least $2200 more in taxes that they can't afford. all because they're trying to protect the wealthiest few from
getting another round of tax cuts that we can't afford. so, let's start there. >> i want to bring in another congressman grijalva. you'll get the last word. what if they call the president's bluff? no extension of unemployment benefits. the sequester kicks in. cuts in both domestic and defense spending. the president will have no more leverage after that fact, isn't that true? >> i think the leverage is there for the president, george. i really do. i'm happy the president and the democrats are not negotiating with themselves this round. they're actually negotiating with people that are in a position in the house to make the decisions. and, if the middle class is -- if that's the vote we take, that's a good vote and that's a step toward in the direction. but, i think that one of the issues that's being left alone in this whole discussion is the amnesia of how we got into this situation, who's responsible for the situation? and to blame the three programs that we're talking about,
medicare, medicaid and social security, as the drivers of this deficit, is a mistake. the drivers happened long ago. two wars and a credit card, financial institutions that took -- abused the american people and now we're being asked to go back to the same people who have endured this crisis and ask them to pay up again. no, no. >> differences are still wide on you four. thanks for coming in today. our powerhouse roundtable is coming right up. their take on the fiscal cliff stalemate in just 90 seconds. their take on the fiscal cliff stalemate in just 90 seconds. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about low-cost investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we're committed to offering you tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 low-cost investment options-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like our exchange traded funds, or etfs tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which now have the lowest tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lower than spdr tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and even lower than vanguard. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that means with schwab, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 your portfolio has tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a better chance to grow. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and you can trade all our etfs online, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free, from your schwab account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so let's talk about saving money, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etfs now have the lowest operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-4schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 or visit schwab.com tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to open an account today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 funding is easy tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should consider tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully information tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 contained in the prospectus, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 including investment objectives, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 risks, charges, and expenses. you can obtain tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a prospectus by visiting tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 www.schwab.com/schwabetfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 please read the prospectus tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully before investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you won't take our future. aids affects us all. even babies. chevron is working to stop mother-to-child transmission. our employees and their families are part of the fight. and we're winning. at chevron nigeria, we haven't had a reported case in 12 years.
aids is strong. aids is strong. but we are stronger. and aids... ♪ aids is going to lose. aids is going to lose. ♪ ♪ gangnam style >> instagramming your breakfast. getting on youtube so that you can see "gangnam style." ♪ gangnam style >> start using those precious social media skills to go out and sign people up. then the horseback. >> who knew that alan simpson could dance "gangnam style." he's part of this big debate on what to do about this fiscal cliff. we'll bring in our roundtable. george will, paul krugman of the "new york times." abc's matthew dowd and my favorites james carville and
mary matalin. thanks a lot for coming in. george, we just heard the lawmakers there as far apart as ever with just 23 days to go, is there any way out of this? >> conceptually, we're dealing here with splittable differences. numbers, how high rates ought to be. we really in our country had unsplittable differences. differences that you really couldn't compromise on. this is doable. the problem is, george, since the second world war, really, through all of american history, our politics has been about allocating abundance. now, we're allocating scarcity. we're not very good at it. i would like to postulate that, the real problem in the country today isn't the divisions that we talked so much about it's a consensus. as broad as the republic, as deep the grand canyon, we should have a generous welfare state and not pay for it. >> oh, boy.
>> paul krugman? >> it's not just numbers. we have a basic difference in outlook. and i think part of the problem is, republicans are unable to make concrete proposals. if you actually look, all of that talk that we just heard, deficits in china and greece, which is nonsense, all of the talk is about how to deal with this, they put out numbers. if you look at all of things that concretely mentioned, all of their actual proposed spending cuts, raising the medicare age, cutting the price index for social security, it's about $300 billion. >> on the wealthy? >> yeah, it's tiny. what they put on the table is almost nothing. all of the rest is just big talk. how is the president supposed to negotiate with people who say, here are my demands? >> that's the point that the white house keeps making, mary, that they can't give the republicans what they don't ask for. >> that's completely mendacious,
the republicans have offered in theory and specificity. raise $1.7 trillion over ten years. we have been very specific. professor -- you know we have -- >> that kills charitable deductions. it hits the middle class hard. >> we had two different ways of going forward. we will not have medicare or social security, we have senior democrat dick durbin saying social security isn't costing a penny. you have those democrats that medicare, medicaid and social security aren't the drivers of this debt. even the president disagrees with this. what these guys should do, coburn is right, this is meaningless, they should even given him 98% or they should do
what president clinton proposed, which is like it extend it for three months and let the new congress. we have a new congress, how is it fair that the outgoing congress that lost is making -- >> they're the ones that voted for it. >> first of all, what we want to do, we want to raise taxes. we want to raise tax rates. when you say you want to close loopholes that does not count. you have to tell us which ones. that's a generic thing. are you going to close charitable, state and local deduction? local finance? >> all of the above. >> what is that you're going to do? the generic statement is it doesn't count. we're very clear about what we want to do. we're not enhancing revenues. we're talking about raising taxes. >> by the way, one thing that had me mad was, when hensarling was talking, he said that the president hasn't proposed cuts. look at that proposal, it has specifics. the stuff that's looking forward, there are major medicare spending cuts, mostly falling on providers not on
beneficiaries. but there are a lot of detail in there. >> professor, if you cut a provider, that doesn't cut beneficiary. is that an economic reality? if you cut provider, you're going to cut a beneficiary. >> not true. >> you know that i have spent a lot of time out in the country. i was in norfolk talking about this, to me, this is not a fiscal problem, this is a leadership problem, if you watch what happens right before we came on, the american public sees that and says what's going on in washington? what values do we stand for as a country? what do we really stand for? with both sides basically taking out positions where american public is a pawn on both sides of this, if both sides sat down and asked themselves what values do we stand for? what do we represent? do we represent a value of shared sacrifice, do we represent a value of balanced
budget and fiscal responsibility? we try to convey values to the american public so that we say this is what we stand before. >> to go to george's point, every time the value of shared sacrifice is presented to the american public, it's rejected. >> because they keep telling the american public, you have your cake and eat it, too. it's the american public fault, but leaders tell them. >> you know, this is exactly what we're doing. we are giving the american people $10 worth of government and charging them about $6.50 for it. of course, they think it's a good deal. we have made big government cheap. it seems to me, paul, first of all, you may not like the ryan budget. you have made that clear in the past. but, the house has twice passed the ryan budget and sent it to the senate. they could have acted on it. >> because the ryan budget is filled with magic asterisks, too, it's not a real budget. it's a fake document. the fact that he doesn't
actually present real budgets. >> well, look, i have yet to encounter someone who disagrees with you that you seem is that they're corrupt. specifics have indeed have been offered. the question is, are the american people, rhetorically conservative and operationally liberal? we're in the processover calling some bluffs. >> george, i wrote a book about this. we haven't grown incomes in this country since the '70s. people have watched wars come. people have watched tax cuts come, bailouts come, right now, after the election, you're the cause of this. we're going to -- you know, if they cut medicare and social security, without really laying a predicate, people are going to say, why am i paying for these mistakes? i have no growth in my income. and the top 1% has had 250%.
that's what the average guy thinks out there. >> that's half-true. that's half-true. the other side says, those who are at fault are the rich people. you won't have to share sacrifice if we just tax the rich more. what i'm saying is, both sides have to come to the conclusion that, if we want to tell the american public that balance in your checkbook is a good idea, having a sense of shared sacrifice is a good idea, personal responsibility is a good idea, helping your community is a good idea. washington, d.c., ought to act on all of the same values. that we want the american public in their neighborhoods to act on. >> but, people who are going to a lot of those shadow values, worked hard and played by the rules and saw their income stagnant or go down, they saw the deficit go up and they saw bad war and bad decisions being made, they're not overly happy about it and i can't blame them. >> it presents a political problem for the republicans, mary, the tax increase for the 98%. that happens on january 1st. it does seem very difficult.
you'll get all of this resolved by the december 31st. doesn't that put the pressure -- >> that makes my point. i'm taking the clinton position here, that to try to, with the president repeatedly wasting week after week after week to have a political -- to be able to blame the republicans politically for this, that's the problem, all of this structural debt is a problem. we do have declining wages. they have declined faster under the obama recovery than under the "bush recession" that's the whole separate problem. you can't just take this piecemeal. republicans will have a problem if they con trip late on the problem. the reality in the world the republicans, while we're looking dismal at the federal level have
won the majority of the governorships and in those cases they're lowering taxes. they are flattening the tax rates. they're creating jobs and growing their economies at twice the rate of this lunacy that the president continues to pursue. >> we have a short-run problem, which is purely a political problem about this fiscal cliff. it has nothing to do with the bondholder and the debt. we should solve that. we should work on that. we got to take a break. lots more roundtable. plus, why did the tea party star quit the senate? what does it mean for the gop? hillary's next move. the world is her oyster now, but what does she want? to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else.
we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. that retiring some day is even an option for sean and me. how'd you get comfortable enough to know you could really do it? well, planning, of course. and we got a lot of good advice. a few years ago, your mom and i put some money into a pacific life fixed annuity. it guarantees us an income for the rest of our lives, whether social security is all there or not. hey, hey! ♪ [ laughs ] [ male announcer ] to learn more about a guaranteed lifetime income from pacific life, visit pacificlife.com.
a guaranteed lifetime income from pacific life, i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
this roundtable hasn't stopped talking. lots more coming up. n't stopped talking. lots more coming up. americans are always ready to work hard for a better future. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ bp has paid overthe people of bp twenty-threeitment to the gulf. billion dollars together for your future.
to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger.
know any good diners in new hampshire. >> paul, thank you for your invitation in iowa and new hampshire. but i will not stand by and watch the people of south carolina ignore it. >> the joking and the jockeying have already begun for 2016. let me reintroduce everyone. george will, paul krugman, matthew dowd, james carville and mary matalin. but first, the supreme court took up two big gay marriage cases. they took up the proposition 8 case which banned gay marriage in california. which leaves up to the possibility that they get to the underlining question is gay marriage a guaranteed right? >> peter finley dunn, great american humorist, his character famously said the supreme court follows the election returns.
this decision by the supreme court came 31 days after election day in which three states for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage at the ballot box, never happened before, maine, maryland and the state of washington. now, the question is, how will that influence the court? it could make them say it's not necessary for us to go here. they don't want to do what they did with abortion. the country was a constructive accommodation on abortion, liberalizing the laws, the court yanked the subject of public discourse. let democracy take care of this, but on the other hand, they could say it's now safe to look at this because there's something like an emerging consensus. the opposition of gay marriage is dying. it's old people. >> that's true. but, at the same time, james carville, right now at least, split the difference
position that george argued, 41 states still outlaw gay marriage. >> right. it depends on whether they're going to allow this to happen. his logic point is actually correct. the election just matters in profound ways, look at salt lake city, the mormon church after the election said, well, maybe we're going to change our position on homosexuality is a choice you're not born that way. the effects of the election reverberates all of the way through society. i can't believe that they took this up. the fact that they took it up, just tells me that they're going to uphold some of these. >> mary, not just the election, but the trend has been pretty clear over the last dozen years. i want to show this pew poll. it shows right now, back in 2001, 57% of the country opposed gay marriage, only 35% were for. this year, it's crossed -- the lines have crossed. 48% approaching. going above 50%. support gay marriage in the country. >> well, because americans have
commonsense. important constitutional, theological questions relative to homosexual relationships. people living in the real world, say, the greatest threat are the heterosexuals who don't get married and create babies. that's more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married. i find this important dancing on the head of a pin argument, but in real life, looking down 30 years from now, real people understand the consequences of so many babies being born out of wedlock to the economy. >> that chart. i don't know why they highlighted 2001. it was a wider gap in 2004 gay marriage was a losing thing for democrats in 2004 is now a winning thing, that's amazing. eight years, this country has changed dramatically. i think it's actually a positive, because this is a significant bloc of voters that
will make a decision based on which party they feel as being favorable to equal rights here. >> to me, the consensus has already emerged on this issue. it's just a question of, is the supreme court going to catch up or get ahead of it? i mean, if you take a look at this, there's still a division in the country over this issue. but there's no division in the country under 35 years old on this issue. i have a perfect example. my son went in the army, they asked him ten years before, raised that hands, who's for gays in the military, 80% said they're opposed to gays in military. when he got in, five, six years, they were for gays in the military. to me, we still, you still have to know that there's a huge group of folks in this country that believes this issue not ready to be established nationally. they're over 35. go to church regularly. but in the end, this issue five
years from now, is going to be more settled. >> george will, that's still the president's position, he didn't come out with a complete federal solution, he didn't say it was a right guaranteed by the constitution. he said let the states continue to decide this. >> married law is a prerogative of the state. a new york woman married in canada her female partner, they lived together 44 years. the partner dies, because the partner wasn't a man, the woman is hit with $363,000 tax bill from the federal government, there are a thousand or more federal laws or programs that are at stake here and the more the welfare state envelops us in regulations and benefits the more the equal protection argument weighs in and maybe -- >> it's hard to see how the supreme court is going to allow them to continue deny those
benefits. something of a surprise, senator jim demint of south carolina left the senate to become the head of the heritage foundation, and it created a big debate on whether he had impact. >> i believe that i can do more good for the conservative movement outside of the senate. >> well, i think it's safe to say boehner is not forcing either of you guys out, right? >> that's pretty true. >> it might work a little bit the other way, rush. >> right. >> mary, do you think demint made the right choice if he wants to have more influence? >> yes, absolutely. as our hero once said, ideas drive history. ideas drive progress. and heritage has long been a vaunt of so many good ideas. and they have -- they're respected. they're cutting edge. we find in congress, it's a piecemeal process.
these guys have big ideas and they have big frameworks, he has a conservative, as a constitutionist, that was a brilliant move, a good move for us, a brilliant move for him and it also leaves nikki haley to fulfill her legacy, her vision of real legislative reform and real economic reform by appointing someone like tim scott. >> who would become the only african-american in the senate right now. >> the actual quote, ideas which are dangerous for good are evil. i'm more interested in, what does this do to heritage? this is sort of taking the think out of the think tank? right? this is turning -- >> george, you were there at the beginning, sort of, at the heritage foundation.
>> 40 years ago this year i was crucial to establishing heritage because i was working for senator, a republican from colorado, and a letter came from joe coors, very generous to conservative causes, he said that i got a quarter of a million dollars and i want to do something to disseminate conservative ideas. i was out of the office that day, which was a good thing. i went to the press secretary, a young man who knew exactly what to do with it. a few years later, they opened up the heritage foundation. this was an important part of conservatism building an alternative infrastructure. liberals have the media, academia and hollywood. conservatives said let's build our own. >> the interesting part of the
insfrak truck -- infrastructure is when dick armey, he left with $7 million severance package. at the same time, senator demint, this is a guy who thought that unmarried schoolteachers. if you unmarried and living with somebody you shouldn't be teaching. >> he had a big influence in the senate. >> he had big influence. he's a very gutsy guy. he was gutsy, i'll give him that. >> well, that's what i was going to say. two things. first thing, his biggest influence was keeping the majority in the senate. but let me make a bigger point, i think is actually a very sad commentary on our politics today. because, here you have a guy that was a well-established u.s. senator with tremendous amount of experience in a group of body that was supposed to respected
in the world. he leaves that and becomes a is epidemic in our political world, they now think their best route to success is to work for super pacs. as we step further and further away, people's success in politics i'm going to hold office and do something good, they now think they can't do that anymore in washington. holding the office. they have to leave in order to have more influence in washington. >> yeah, i mean, all that really matters for the most part in congress is whether you have a r or d after your name. he can have a lot more influence by moving off to the heritage foundation. >> meanwhile, there has been this real debate of where the republicans go after the election, there were two serious speeches this week by paul ryan and marco rubio at the american enterprise institute where they took on that challenge.
>> both parties tend to divide americans into our voters and their voters. let's be really clear, republicans must steer far clear of that trap. >> i have heard it suggested that the problem is that the american people have changed. that too many people want things from government. but i'm still convinced that the overwhelming majority of our people just want what my parents had, a chance. >> george will, i think marco rubio used the phrase, middle-class, more than two dozen times in that speech. >> yeah, usually the forgotten middle class and it's all we talk about. is the forten middle class. the republicans' problem is the national problem, the sense of stagnation among americans who are not on the ladder of upward mobility. right now, the widening disparities. health care costs and the cost of that which puts you on the ladder, the cost of college.
in about four, five weeks, we are going to pass a milestone, a trillion dollars of student debt. more than credit card debt in this country. two-thirds of kids leave college with student debt, average $29,000 a person. they're graduating from college with a mortgage already. how are they going to buy houses, form families and everything else? >> one of the big ideas that marco rubio was talking about, making sure there were a lot more transparency as kids are taking out loans. >> sure. i thought that what was striking by both speeches, we need to reach out to lower-income working americans, and the idea for that, tax cuts for the rich are actually good for them. no substantiative policy change in either speech. it was amazing stuff. >> well, the gop isn't a very difficult position. because the american country has changed and the republican brand
and their candidates today don't match where the country is, fundamentally the american electorate looks much different. >> can i -- >> wait a second, mary. fundamentally different than american -- i think they need to stake out a ground that says, we not only look different but we're going to say things different. they have to run against washington and run against wall street. they have to become the party of the middle class, and whether they look at marco rubio or governor christie, their brand has to change to win the election. >> mary? >> you just say that one of those guys don't look like normal problems. that's disdifference between conservatives and liberals. ideas are dangerous for good or evil. can i just say we're missing the reality here, the federal office aren't the entirety of our problem. we have mayors who are making progress in all kinds of states and all kinds of different people are stepping up to run for office.
rubio and ryan are very deep in policy. policies have been reflected in huge successes in indiana and wisconsin and across the country and everywhere republicans hold the majorities of the governor ship. >> two speeches, written, a nice-looking guy, take a good shot. they had a vote, they had a vote and it was a treaty that dick thornburg negotiated that bush pushed through, that everybody was about how you treat disabled people, it was not enforceable. somebody said, if you pass this, they're going to break into your house and you won't be able to homeschool your kids unless you have ramp. 36 republicans voted against this. if they can give a speech, but when it comes time to vote and the same thing comes back, they need to break out, i think the
vote was the most illustrious thing of the week. >> just as mary suggests, the country is mixed in its views right now. next week, michigan, the fifth highest unionization rate, and the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country, may become the 24th right to work state. my suggestion, matt, wall street, main street, and all the rest, i'll know that the republican party is on the way back when they have a good sense from breaking up the biggest bans. >> absolutely. i don't know whether the gop sold to wall street or vice versa in this last election. but clearly, wall street tends to be relatively democratic in the past. now it's that close to the republican party right now. meanwhile, at the same time, we got front page of "new york times" this morning, look at it right here, hillary clinton,
2016, all of her choices hinge on that. we also did a poll at abc news, this week, 57% of the country right now would support hillary clinton for president. james carville, of course, you worked closely with her for many years, it's safe to say that no one knows what she's going to do, the point is, every decision she makes now, she has to look at it through the prism of that bigger decision. right? >> since 1974, sitting here, republicans have always craved order. we have always been people fell in love we're looking for the next argument. this is entirely different. every democrat i know says, hope she runs. we don't need a primary. the republicans they need a fight. somebody has to beat somebody. you got to beat somebody good. you got to go through the
difficult processes. you got to beat somebody. the republicans know that they need a primary. we don't want to be slugging this thing out in april. we like winning presidential elections. she's popular. let's just go with it. the pressure is going to be nor -- enormous. >> you're making mary laugh over there. >> well, the idea that this defies. i love hillary. i wish she would run. democrats, even though they are redistributionists and utopians would not be competitive, others waiting in the wing, would have a dynasties. they'll have another clinton step up? furthermore, the democratic party is split. 17% of them are extreme liberals and the rest of them are centrists. the senators that are running are centrists. the ones that just got elected
are centrists. she would to run with the country which would alienate -- >> she bridges that divide right now. >> what's happened is, the extreme liberals, i guess i talk to a lot of those guys, they're also pragmatic. they compromised a lot on health care reform. they wanted medicare for all. they would see hillary clinton as someone who could continue to make incremental progress toward what they want. i have never seen this much love for someone. >> i do think -- the whole race of 2016 pivots off of her. i think, whether or not other democrats run, it will all pivot off of her. republicans are going to pivot off of what she does. to me, this is a moment where we're going to have a dominant woman candidate for president. whether hillary clinton runs or not, if she doesn't run, another woman is going to run. washington is in dire need of women leadership. in the congress. if you look at the exhibition and all of the dynamics, i think -- this country would be served well, whether it's hillary or
somebody else, a woman candidate emerged as a dominant force in this country. >> the junior senator from new york will be that woman who's now occupying hillary's seat. senator hillebrand. >> and hillary? >> i have no clue and i'm not going to think about presidential elections. >> i don't know what she's going to do but i do know this, the democrats want her to run. i don't just mean a lot of democrats, i mean a whole lot of democrats, 90% across the country. we don't -- we just want to win. we think that she's the best person. that's across the board. >> until then, it freezes the race for a long time which is blessing for george will. we have one more round coming up. another pro football death overnight. how should the nfl handle its moment of crisis? that's coming up.
music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
the new tragedy in the nfl tonight. >> cowboys nose tackle josh brent was arrested this morning. faces the charge of intoxication manslaughter. >> jovan belcher was supposed to be taking the field tonight for the chiefs. that's not going to happen. police say that jovan belcher killed his girlfriend and then killed himself in front of his coach. >> what a rough weekend for nfl. cover of "time" magazine this week, roger goodell, the nfl commissioner is there. the question is, can roger goodell save football?
george will, are the pressures of pro football worth our cheers? >> it may be a guilty pleasure the way boxing now is, we don't look at boxing the way we used to, because we know what's happening to brain trauma. george, let me give you some numbers, in 1980, there were three nfl players who weighed more than 300 pounds. 2011, 352 over 300 pounds. football is played basically within ten yards of either side of the line of scrimmage. these big men are quick as cats. the kinetic energy is such, the body is simply not made for it. last year, 31 of 32 nfl offensive lines averaged more than 300 pounds. i don't think the body is made for it. i think these men are paying a terrible price. >> we went to the super bowl in
2013 in new orleans, 2013, i'm never going to run for a public office in louisiana. the commissioner is a friend of mine. having said that, i think he knows that he's dealing with a major problem, he's very upfront with it. eliminating kickoff. >> who think that it's going to happen? >> three-point stance could be gone. he's up front. it's a huge game. it's a wonderful game. but this is a real problem. this head trauma is a real problem. he's not denying it. i don't think any other person would deny that. >> this is a huge problem. i'm going to be upfront. i'm a longtime suffering detroit lion fan. eliminating football is going to affect our city all that much. but i have three boys, two of them -- i live in austin, texas, home of "friday night lights." football is like a religion
there. my two oldest played football. i think the commissioner is basically, all he's done is window dressing on. the flight down here, i sat right next to earl campbell, a dominant force, he had to come on the plane in a wheelchair. his knees were shot. his hands were shot. i don't think the nfl has done their players right or the country right, they haven't dealt with the brain injuries that have happened in this country. they keep doing things that can eliminate the kickoff when they know that there's a fundamental problem. that they haven't dealt with. >> change isn't going to come from the top down. but it will come from parents withdrawing from that sport. >> they'll have to be under evaluation. i think he's taking this seriously. >> thank you all very much. and now, we honor our fellow americans who serve and sacrifice. this week, the pentagon released the names of three soldiers and marines killed in afghanistan.
and finally, your voice this week, henry kinch jr. has today's question -- how long a second term president relevant prior to "lame duck" setting in? to quote bill clinton the president is always relevant. as commander in chief and chief executive, far and way the most powerful person in the country, the window for real legislative success generally closes before the midterm elections. presidents have achieved a lot during years five and six. that's when dwight eisenhower signed the civil rights act. ronald reagan forged a bipartisan compromise on tax reform in his sixth. and bill clinton did the same with the balanced budget act that put the country on road to a surplus in 1997. send in your questions on twitter and james and mary are going to stick around to answer your tweets for this week's web extra. that is all for us today.
thank you for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out "world news" with david muir tonight and i'll see you tomorrow on "good morning america." >> in the news, growing safety concerns after three murders in a 24 hour span. and a charity known for collecting donations during the holidays is at the center of a controversy in berkeley. >> good morning. we are looking at lots of sunshine. we aren't looking at it, but we are going to see a beautiful day today. a dryer and warmer air mass arrives today. here we go. you can see all the sunshine downtown san francisco at